@J_D_Klein @wsbgnl @mskathleenquinn @celinegounder @mtosterholm @ZekeEmanuel The comment/clip from @wsbgnl is right, though. They don't actually call for that in the article. My recollection is that was suggested in interviews, but it's all a bit vague for my liking as well.

@J_D_Klein@wsbgnl@mskathleenquin@celinegounder@mtosterholm@ZekeEmanuel@wsbgnl的评论/剪辑是正确的。他们在这篇文章中并没有要求这样做。我记得这是采访中提到的，但对我的喜好来说也有点模糊。

@wsbgnl @J_D_Klein @mskathleenquinn @celinegounder @mtosterholm @ZekeEmanuel They do somewhere call for zero excess deaths from all respiratory diseases. But they're a little weak and vague on how to ensure getting there.

@wsbgnl@J_D_Klein@mskathleenquin@celinegounder@mtosterholm@ZekeEmanuel他们确实在某处呼吁所有呼吸系统疾病的零超额死亡。但他们在如何确保实现目标方面有点软弱和模糊。

@michael_hoerger @Amal4Solutions @JimRosenthal4 @CorsIAQ @LazarusLong13 @CleanAirCrewOrg @kprather88 You want several air changes per hour. The "this cleaner works in a ___ size room" specs in sales material are usually for 1 or 2 air changes per hour. So you will need a bigger unit than they're saying. If you want quiet you need to run it on a lower speed, so bigger still.

@michael_hoerger@Amal4Solutions@JimRosenthal4@CorsIAQ@LazarusLong13@CleanAirCrewOrg@kprather88您希望每小时更换几次空气。销售资料中的“这种清洁剂在一个__________________。所以你需要一个比他们说的更大的单位。如果你想要安静，你需要以更低的速度运行，所以更大。

@Marco_Piani @CedScherer I mean you would expect CoM to write clearly, but I guess you'd be wrong.

@Marco_Piani@CedScherer我的意思是你希望CoM写得清楚，但我猜你错了。

@Marco_Piani @CedScherer It's odd writing in the comma rule, particularly given the more typical usage of the phrase with large numbers, where the distinction between >= and > doesn't really matter.
https://idioms.thefreedictiona... https://t.co/aPjVjk1Mvi

@Marco_Piani@CedScherer这是用逗号规则写的很奇怪，尤其是考虑到更典型的大数字短语用法，>；=和>；没关系。
https://idioms.thefreedictiona... https://t.co/aPjVjk1Mvi

@Marco_Piani @CedScherer Perhaps by "upwards of 4" they mean at least 4. It isn't really clear.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... https://t.co/nFlPd6mFFR

@Marco_Piani@CedScherer可能指的是至少4个。现在还不清楚。
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... https://t.co/nFlPd6mFFR

@FoxNews @TulsiGabbard Who?

@FoxNews@Tulsigabard谁？

@Marco_Piani @CedScherer I think by "upwards of" they mean 9,999 would not use a comma. For example, in years such as 2022.
I would use commas for four digit numbers in a list where some of the numbers are >4 digits.

@Marco_Piani@CedScherer我认为“向上”的意思是9999不会使用逗号。例如，在2022年这样的年份。
我会在列表中使用逗号表示四位数，其中一些数字是>；4位数。

@wsbgnl Totally different context but at the core of all of the bad decision making (as it usually is) is a low level of competence and understanding of the nature of contagion
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@wsbgnl完全不同的背景，但所有糟糕决策（通常是这样）的核心是低水平的能力和对传染性质的理解
https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@NYCHealthCommr "MUST" meaning what exactly?
What is the enforcement mechanism?

@NYCHealthCommr“必须”的确切含义是什么？
执行机制是什么？

@itosettiMD_MBA Because it's actually not as hard as being overrun with covid.

@我选择了Timd_MBA，因为它实际上没有新冠病毒泛滥那么难。

@apoorva_nyc Cases in the community is not a good decision rule for mitigations. It feels like it should be ("If it is cold out, wear a coat"). But, in fact, contagions are quite different from weather. Wearing a coat doesn't make it less cold, but effective migrations do affect case rates.

@社区中的apoorva_nyc案例不是缓解措施的良好决策规则。感觉应该是这样的（“如果外面很冷，穿件外套”）。但事实上，传染病与天气有很大不同。穿外套并不能减少寒冷，但有效的迁移确实会影响病例率。

@lovemoz1 @MullingMueller @hjelle_brian @Ldonahuehjelle Anecdotally, it's just not extremely high (exact number could vary of course). There are a number of careful studies such as the early norway omicron outbreak where people are often asymptomatic when first testing positive but nearly all do develop symptoms (99% in that case).

@lovemoz1@MullingMueller@hjelle_brian@Ldonahuehjelle据传闻，这个数字并不是非常高（确切数字当然可能会有所不同）。有很多仔细的研究，比如早期的挪威omicron暴发，人们在首次检测呈阳性时通常没有症状，但几乎所有人都会出现症状（在这种情况下99%）。

@justthefacts85 Not sure this has anything to do with covid. I'd guess cooling all the lights and equipment. Perhaps creating a "cold" environment for a winter scene.

@只是事实85不确定这是否与新冠病毒有关。我猜是冷却所有的灯和设备。也许为冬季场景创造一个“寒冷”的环境。

@GyanfactoryM @linseymarr @DocJeffD A molecule of water vapor consists of three atoms (two hydrogens and an oxygen). A particle of virus consists of millions of atoms. There is no comparison whatsoever.

@GyanfactoryM@linseymarr@DocJeffD水蒸气分子由三个原子（两个氢和一个氧）组成。一个病毒粒子由数百万个原子组成。没有任何可比性。

@linseymarr @Rose_Marie_Holt If gasses couldn't go through the mask you would suffocate.
This misinformation trope is incredibly tired.

@linseymarr@Rose_Marie_Holt如果毒气不能通过口罩，你会窒息。
这种错误的信息比喻令人难以置信地厌倦。

@justthefacts85 It's still very different from San Diego, but he keeps citing the "incomplete" portion of the chart which always seems to show a big decline for vaccinated, which never persists once out of "incomplete". My theory is that there is a bias in that portion of the chart.

@只是事实85与圣地亚哥仍有很大不同，但他不断引用图表中的“不完整”部分，这似乎总是显示接种疫苗的人数大幅下降，一旦出现“不完整”的情况，这种情况就不会持续。我的理论是，图表的这一部分存在偏差。

@charles76045086 @DLeonhardt Way below unvaccinated diabetics with a big gut.

@charles76045086@DLeonhardt远远低于未接种疫苗、肠胃大的糖尿病患者。

@ZekeEmanuel @PostOpinions PCR tests don't take longer than 18 hours. The problem is poor coordination of the process from sample collection to lab to reporting. Stop reimbursing results not reported within 18 hours and problem goes away.

@ZekeEmanuel@PostOperations PCR检测所需时间不超过18小时。问题是从样本采集到实验室再到报告的过程协调性差。停止报销18小时内未报告的结果，问题就会消失。

@MullingMueller @hjelle_brian @Ldonahuehjelle These estimates have varied over time but now CDC says that only about 15% have been asymptomatic (as of September, may be different now). Unclear to what extent that may co-vary with transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...

@MullingMueller@hjelle_brian@Ldonahuehjelle这些估计数随着时间的推移而变化，但现在CDC表示，只有大约15%的人没有症状（截至9月，现在可能有所不同）。目前尚不清楚这种情况会在多大程度上随传播而变化。
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru...